Notes about Office Open XML and Standardization of Office Open XML
These two articles are just about WP:OWNedbyUser:hAl, with support from User:Ghettoblaster. They have spent a great deal of time attempting to make the articles read like there was an orderly process of standardization, leading to a reasonable result that reasonable peope agree with, and that there's no running controversy about the format.
I think they're totally wrong. There was the greatest controversy in the whole history of JTC1 about the issue, Microsoft spent huge amounts of capital both political and monetary to force the positive vote, and the format is, technically, a baroque pile of obscurantism that is a severe barrier to entry in the document marketplace. (There, I've stated an opinion!)
User:hAl has stated that he is "independant from any software related companies" - I take it that he means by that that Microsoft does not pay him to edit the article.
User:Ghettoblaster has accused me of conflict of interest on the page.
My first contribution in the archive of Office Open XML seems to have been this: "At the risk of drawing other articles into the edit war - check out Open standard and Open format. It should be readily apparent from these articles that 1) there is no common consensus on what a standard has to be in order to be an "open standard", and 2) that ISO designation is regarded by many as neither necessary nor sufficient. --Alvestrand (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
A couple of IP users appearing after User:hAl was indef-suspended; keep an eye on them.
These are things that User:hAl keeps reverting when added.
I claim that the claim "free and open" shouldn't be in the lede, so replace it with "freely available" (which is noncontentious).
Reverts: Sept 30, Sept 29, Sept 27, Sept 23
Documentation:
As of late September, User:Thumperward has taken over management of an RfC on this subject on the talk page.
Reverts: [2]
Documentation:
User:hAl has discovered (because I said so) that I was part of the Norwegian ISO committee on the issue, representing Google. He's using this as a jibe, claiming that the reason I'm fighting his falsification of history is that I lost the fight in ISO and now want revenge by rewriting the Wikipedia article. [3], [4].